Tied with someone else

Undecided

Your own words "step out and live in the real world". Live by it, would you?
For someone who claimed to know and follow tennis, qualifying WTF as "sheet" is ... NOT to know and follow tennis!
As a matter of fact, facing the 7 top players of a given year in WTF is so much tougher to win compared to the first 3-4 rounds of any GS tourney! In fact, name me one instance where you face someone ranked as high as #5 or 6 in the world right at your first match in a GS tourney. Nowhere! Never! The only thing that WTF doesn't have to make as prestigious as Wimby or FO is its shorter history. In fact, many already proposed it to the 5th slam! Not too bad for a 'sheet' tourney, huh?!

Click to expand...

Why don't you read any article or listen to any former great talk about goat cadidacy......show me just one .....just one that talks about WTF.

Why don't you read any article or listen to any former great talk about goat cadidacy......show me just one .....just one that talks about WTF.

Go ahead I dare you .

Click to expand...

Who are the "greats" that you thought? The likes of "Becker, Agassi, Courier, and Sampras"? You know what, let me enlighten you about their own records at the WTF (as winning):
1. Becker : 2
2. Agassi: 1
3. Courier: 0
4. Sampras: 5
Laver, Tilden, Rosewall, and co. I leave them out since the WTF didn't exist in their time. Correct me if I'm wrong.
So, the total of WTF titles of your greats (4 players) is 8. Fed by himself won 6 IN THE ROW. So looking at their record, it's hard pressed to say they're qualified to say anything about that 'sheet' tourney, right? Only Sampras has some kind of bragging rights, I give you that, but the other 3... Humm...
Second, name me a GS tourney where you may face a #5-8 world player right at your 1st match.Go ahead, I dare you. Now, what would you prefer, facing a nobody qualifier or #5-8-ranked player?
Third, does the sun still rise on the east? If you answer "no" and have to make a poll to find out, then we'll know what you truly are. Go ahead, give me an answer. Hoping to have a 'no' as answer here and can't wait to see your poll!

But Nadal has missed 7 slams and Nadal has not been around as long as fed.

Click to expand...

Missing 7 slams is not part of the equation. But I agree that it's premature to rule Nadal out as a possible GOAT until his career is over - there is still potential for him to win more slams and maybe catch Fed. Personally I don't think it will happen, but who knows. As of right now, Nadal is eclipsed by Fed, but perhaps Nadal will win enough additional slams to change that.

Who are the "greats" that you thought? The likes of "Becker, Agassi, Courier, and Sampras"? You know what, let me enlighten you about their own records at the WTF (as winning):
1. Becker : 2
2. Agassi: 1
3. Courier: 0
4. Sampras: 5
Laver, Tilden, Rosewall, and co. I leave them out since the WTF didn't exist in their time. Correct me if I'm wrong.
So, the total of WTF titles of your greats (4 players) is 8. Fed by himself won 6 IN THE ROW. So looking at their record, it's hard pressed to say they're qualified to say anything about that 'sheet' tourney, right? Only Sampras has some kind of bragging rights, I give you that, but the other 3... Humm...
Second, name me a GS tourney where you may face a #5-8 world player right at your 1st match.Go ahead, I dare you. Now, what would you prefer, facing a nobody qualifier or #5-8-ranked player?
Third, does the sun still rise on the east? If you answer "no" and have to make a poll to find out, then we'll know what you truly are. Go ahead, give me an answer. Hoping to have a 'no' as answer here and can't wait to see your poll!

Click to expand...

Becker actually did better than that. He won 3 WTF plus a WCT finals plus a Grand Slam Cup (so 5 major indoor titles in all)

Back to the topic of the thread. Yes, Nadal is the Clay GOAT - there really isn't anybody else in contention. However, one need not depreciate the WTF to establish this. It is clearly the number 5 tournament. (At times in its history, the number 4 tournament)

Things get more complicated when you consider Laver and his contemporaries who straddled the open era. So it's hard to compare.

But post open era, yeah it gets much simpler; it's about the slams, and then weeks at #1, and then individual head to head rivalries, in that order.

Missing 7 slams is not part of the equation. But I agree that it's premature to rule Nadal out as a possible GOAT until his career is over - there is still potential for him to win more slams and maybe catch Fed. Personally I don't think it will happen, but who knows. As of right now, Nadal is eclipsed by Fed, but perhaps Nadal will win enough additional slams to change that.

Click to expand...

All distortion......

As a famous fed fan once said....and I'll turn around on you......

"Come talk to me when Laver has 12"

If Fed is the goat for 17 then Nadal is greater than Laver because Nadal has 12.

If Fed is the goat for 17 then Nadal is greater than Laver because Nadal has 12.

Click to expand...

Laver is rated so high also because of years being nr.1. And one, arguably two CYGS. That is why Nadal can't be goat. Because he was nr.2 for most of his career. Time spend at nr.1 is HUGE. Well, not to Nadal fans, for obvious reasons, but it is for most people, including players. All players have dreams being nr.1 and winning slams. That is what tennis is about.

And Fed is not the goat ONLY for 17. Where did you get this? It's the combination of a lot of things. Also 302 weeks being nr.1. This is BIG.
On top of that 6 WTF titles, who are superior to master shields.
He has the best consistency ever. 23 consecutive semis. He also has DOMINATION of 3 slams.

You are saying, but that's all we say. But what more is there?

But I know your type. I've seen your shape before. You will never give Fed any credit. If he wins too much, you say, weak era. If he has opposition who beats him, you say he isn't good enough. You created lose-lose scenario for Fed.

But to be fair, fans do the same to Nadal, Sampras, Laver. People, who don't accomplish a lot in life love to criticize the greats. They believe, that this makes them look better. People use the same weak era arguments for Laver, Sampras, Nadal. Also ped accusations and cheating, you name it.

Since you listen to Becker so much. But you will find more excuses, I bet. You will only use words and context that suits you.

Click to expand...

Look the tournament is a lot of fun. The round robin format is great .....so even if you lose you can still win. And you have all the stars together is like am Allstar match.

Thats exactly what it's like in a team sport .....am Allstar match .

It's fun to watch but no one really counts it as a factor for discussing the greatness of a player or entry into the hall of fame .

It's pure entertainment ..... A lot of fun .

But it is not even in the same league as a slam.

The winning of a slam ......just one slam is the difference between being named as a great .

For example what do you remember about Yanick Noah? Michael Chang? Del Potro .....all that they won a slam. And all are one slam wonders but they are In a higher echelon .

Now compare those guys to Davydenko or Nalbandian .....they both won WTF but never won a slam . So what has WTF done for them ?

Absolutely nothing .....no one cares .....but the fact that Roddick and yanick Noah Michael Chang won a slam puts them in a higher echelon ...

They are in history and are all contenders for the hall of fame. WTF on the other hand is a nice little exhibition with a cool round robin format ......but it's not even close to a slam and does not belong on any discussion of greatness .....and never has been .

Look the tournament is a lot of fun. The round robin format is great .....so even if you lose you can still win. And you have all the stars together is like am Allstar match.

Thats exactly what it's like in a team sport .....am Allstar match .

It's fun to watch but no one really counts it as a factor for discussing the greatness of a player or entry into the hall of fame .

It's pure entertainment ..... A lot of fun .

But it is not even in the same league as a slam.

The winning of a slam ......just one slam is the difference between being named as a great .

For example what do you remember about Yanick Noah? Michael Chang? Del Potro .....all that they won a slam. And all are one slam wonders but they are In a higher echelon .

Now compare those guys to Davydenko or Nalbandian .....they both won WTF but never won a slam . So what has WTF done for them ?

Absolutely nothing .....no one cares .....but the fact that Roddick and yanick Noah Michael Chang won a slam puts them in a higher echelon ...

They are in history and are all contenders for the hall of fame. WTF on the other hand is a nice little exhibition with a cool round robin format ......but it's not even close to a slam and does not belong on any discussion of greatness .....and never has been .

Click to expand...

What is an exhibition? Last I checked it was a tournament where you can earn up to 3/4s of the points of a slam. So please elaborate, how is it an exhibition?

Re. Davydenko or Nalbandian - it is listed as simply their best career achievement to date. It is rated as high as a slam, but nearly so. In context only 3 guys, who were no slam winners, in the 43 years, have won it.

What is an exhibition? Last I checked it was a tournament where you can earn up to 3/4s of the points of a slam. So please elaborate, how is it an exhibition?

Re. Davydenko or Nalbandian - it is listed as simply their best career achievement to date. It is rated as high as a slam, but nearly so. In context only 3 guys, who were no slam winners, in the 43 years, have won it.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this is not even debatable . No one talks about WTF as a factor for greatness.

I have dared you 2 times before to show me even one article . This is now the third time I am daring you.

It's just not a factor and really belongs no where in a greatness debate. If you believe otherwise then please cite just one article otherwise can you please just stop ?

The same is Fed vs Nadal on hard. On grass Fed leads 7-1 in slams and 2-1 h2h. Even with a bad matchup he somehow found a way to lead Nadal.

On hard Fed has 9 slams and 6 WTF. Nadal has 2 and 0 WTF. Fed owns Nadal in master a lot. So why can Nadal beat Fed, but he can't beat others to win more titles than Fed? I mean if he is better why can't he do it?
A bad matchup.

But still, even with this bad matchup and 5 years gap, Fed still has the most records in history. And more weeks at nr.1. If it's not a bad matchup, why can't Nadal beat others to become nr.1?

So, Fed without Nadal has 20+ slams and is undisputed goat. But it took a surface goat and one of the greats in history to slow down Fed a little.

8 French Open titles out of 9
8 Monte Carlo Masters titles out of 9
7 Rome Masters titles out of 9
8 Barcelona Open titles out of 9
2 Madrid Masters titles out of 5 since 2009,

Click to expand...

These figures show without a shadow of a doubt that he's been the best clay court player in the world since 2005. Hard to judge before that because of, you know, different playing conditions, Start Trek rackets and strings compared with wood and guts, laughable competition (2005 was just about when weak era started according to our Vamos Brigade specialists), etcetera. Same old, same old...

These figures show without a shadow of a doubt that he's been the best clay court player in the world since 2005. Hard to judge before that because of, you know, different playing conditions, Start Trek rackets and strings compared with wood and guts, laughable competition (2005 was just about when weak era started according to our Vamos Brigade specialists), etcetera. Same old, same old...

Click to expand...

I think this is what the OP is trying to say. The most accomplished player doesn't mean the great player ever, and in this case, the most accomplished clay court player doesn't mean the greatest clay court player. For reasons that you have just outlined.

If Fed is the goat for 17 then Nadal is greater than Laver because Nadal has 12.

Click to expand...

I have no idea who said that and frankly don't care. Laver did not have the opportunity to increase his slam count because as a professional he was no allowed to participate in slams for many years. Nadal had no such outside restrictions. The slams he skipped were for injury/personal reasons. And of course Nadal can still add to his count. So Laver cannot be compared apples to apples with players whose entire careers took place in the open era.

Look, I personally am a fan of both Fed and Nadal, and think they are both great players. I think Fed is GOAT because of his overall accomplishments, and Nadal is CGOAT because of his utter domination on clay.

You on the other hand have a bee in your bonnet for some reason, and so whenever someone tries to look at things objectively, you get defensive.

It's one loss on one given day . It's not like it continually happens.

How can Canas or Puerta who both beat Federer happen? It just does happen.

There was one year that Navratilova won every match . She was undefeated the whole year .....NO ONE beat her ......NO ONE .....except the great Kathleen Horvath ! Yup .....that's the only person for a whole year that beat her .

I have no idea who said that and frankly don't care. Laver did not have the opportunity to increase his slam count because as a professional he was no allowed to participate in slams for many years. Nadal had no such outside restrictions. The slams he skipped were for injury/personal reasons. And of course Nadal can still add to his count. So Laver cannot be compared apples to apples with players whose entire careers took place in the open era.

Look, I personally am a fan of both Fed and Nadal, and think they are both great players. I think Fed is GOAT because of his overall accomplishments, and Nadal is CGOAT because of his utter domination on clay.

You on the other hand have a bee in your bonnet for some reason, and so whenever someone tries to look at things objectively, you get defensive.

Click to expand...

Are you trying to win an argument with TDK, my friend? Humm...Don't shed tears if you lose because this is someone who needs a poll to validate the POV that Rafa is CGOAT. He hasn't answered my question to which cardinal point the sun rises each morning,...yet. Perhaps a poll would help...

I have no idea who said that and frankly don't care. Laver did not have the opportunity to increase his slam count because as a professional he was no allowed to participate in slams for many years. Nadal had no such outside restrictions. The slams he skipped were for injury/personal reasons. And of course Nadal can still add to his count. So Laver cannot be compared apples to apples with players whose entire careers took place in the open era.

Look, I personally am a fan of both Fed and Nadal, and think they are both great players. I think Fed is GOAT because of his overall accomplishments, and Nadal is CGOAT because of his utter domination on clay.

You on the other hand have a bee in your bonnet for some reason, and so whenever someone tries to look at things objectively, you get defensive.

Click to expand...

Not true at all.

I hear what you say . Federer has the greatest record for sure.

But in the slams .....if it were even close .....like Borg Mcenroe was 2-1 then I would say ok Fed is the "greatest".

But in the slams it's been a slaughter . I mean the only slams Fed won was on freaking grass .....and barely ....when Nadal was still yet a boy ......

But ok Fe has those two grass slams to desperately cling to . After that it's been a freaking blood bath!!! Since 2008 what is the slam record ? Like 6-0 or something ??? And that with 3 surfaces not being clay !

Seriously .....that's bad.....that's beyond bad . It's actually the worst head to head in slam history .

So Fed may have a great record and be the greatest in that regard......but Nadal is the better player because Nadal beats Fed.

It all depends on what you define as greatest. Federer is the greatest but Nadal is the best ever .

But in the slams .....if it were even close .....like Borg Mcenroe was 2-1 then I would say ok Fed is the "greatest".

But in the slams it's been a slaughter . I mean the only slams Fed won was on freaking grass .....and barely ....when Nadal was still yet a boy ......

But ok Fe has those two grass slams to desperately cling to . After that it's been a freaking blood bath!!! Since 2008 what is the slam record ? Like 6-0 or something ??? And that with 3 surfaces not being clay !

Seriously .....that's bad.....that's beyond bad . It's actually the worst head to head in slam history .

So Fed may have a great record and be the greatest in that regard......but Nadal is the better player because Nadal beats Fed.

It all depends on what you define as greatest. Federer is the greatest but Nadal is the best ever .

Click to expand...

Nadal owns Fed H2H in slams, no doubt. But that is certainly not the only measure, and is in fact already included in the slam count.

What I mean is, the record in slam finals is 6-2 to Nadal, and despite that Fed has 17, Nadal 12.

Now imagine if Nadal was not such a horrible matchup for Fed, and let's say they had split finals 4-4. Then Fed would be at 19, Nadal at 10 - a much bigger gap. And of course if Fed was leading the slam final H2H, it would be even more.

So the H2H is *already included* when you look at the slam count, in the sense that it has kept Fed's count much lower that it otherwise would have been, and raised Nadals. You can't then use double accounting, and bring up the H2H as a separate issue.

This is part of why slam count is viewed by most as the best indicator of GOATness in the open era. Because it already incorporates other metrics as well, such as H2H as I just showed, and #1 ranking to a large extent (there is a correlation (not perfect, but quiet strong) between #slams won by players and the #weeks at #1, in large part because they get so many points from the slams).

Nadal owns Fed H2H in slams, no doubt. But that is certainly not the only measure, and is in fact already included in the slam count.

What I mean is, the record in slam finals is 6-2 to Nadal, and despite that Fed has 17, Nadal 12.

Now imagine if Nadal was not such a horrible matchup for Fed, and let's say they had split finals 4-4. Then Fed would be at 19, Nadal at 10 - a much bigger gap. And of course if Fed was leading the slam final H2H, it would be even more.

So the H2H is *already included* when you look at the slam count, in the sense that it has kept Fed's count much lower that it otherwise would have been, and raised Nadals. You can't then use double accounting, and bring up the H2H as a separate issue.

This is part of why slam count is viewed by most as the best indicator of GOATness in the open era. Because it already incorporates other metrics as well, such as H2H as I just showed, and #1 ranking to a large extent (there is a correlation (not perfect, but quiet strong) between #slams won by players and the #weeks at #1, in large part because they get so many points from the slams).

Click to expand...

Woushh! I can hear the speed which your explanation just passed through TDK's mind. Sorry, mate!

Does being the most accomplished tennis player on a surface, or most accomplished player all round, make you a surface GOAT or overall GOAT?

Click to expand...

Yes generally most accomplished is GOAT. Hence why Laver, Rosewall, and Gonzales, the 3 most accomplished ever are the overall GOATs; while Nadal, by far the most accomplished clay courter ever is the hands down CLAY GOAT. Of course other elements like level of play and subjective views on abilities can factor in, but in Nadal's case he is by far the highest in all of achievements, peak level of play, and overall ability on clay.

Yes generally most accomplished is GOAT. Hence why Laver, Rosewall, and Gonzales, the 3 most accomplished ever are the overall GOATs; while Nadal, by far the most accomplished clay courter ever is the hands down CLAY GOAT. Of course other elements like level of play and subjective views on abilities can factor in, but in Nadal's case he is by far the highest in all of achievements, peak level of play, and overall ability on clay.